Post-election contributions raise ethical issues

Let's not stop there. The political money laws are not alone in requiring repair. A stricter code of ethics covering a variety of issues may be in order throughout state government.

The governor succeeded in gaining approval earlier this year of tougher Open Records and Open Meetings laws. He raised the specter of criminal sanctions against willful violators.

Maybe he should do the same with legislators and others who thumb their noses at the financial disclosure requirements of the State Ethics Commission.

And what of the rampant allegations of conflict of interest, which have sprung up in every corner of the state Capitol?

Longtime watchers of state government say they do not recall seeing as many instances of corruption and mismanagement come to light in such a short period.

Questions involving mishandling millions in public funds have been raised about the state Building Authority, the Department of Administrative Services, the Department of Education, Georgia Public Broadcasting and the recently reorganized Department of Medical Assistance.

A state senator, Diana Harvey Johnson, has been convicted of five counts of mail fraud in connection with a scheme to divert state appropriations into her own pocket.

House Minority Leader Bob Irvin of Sandy Springs last week called for an investigation and possible censure of three Democratic House members, one (Rep. Arnold Ragas) for failure to comply with Ethics Commission disclosure laws and two (Reps. Nan Orrock and Michele Henson) for receiving thousands of dollars from a state agency that they as lawmakers helped create. (The House Democratic leadership has shown little interest in Irvin's demand for an inquiry.)

The media revealed recently that lobbyist Mo Thrash served on the Corrections Board while representing the 3M Corporation, which receives millions in state funds for services and products provided to the Corrections Department.

Thrash finally resigned from the Corrections Board, though he said the governor asked him to remain. As he quit, he took a verbal shot at the press.

``It's not worth it for a private citizen to donate all his time and efforts to the citizens of this state and have his integrity called into question,'' he complained.

Meanwhile, Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine has stepped up his fund-raising efforts among executives of the insurance industry, which he regulates. That may not be illegal, but it clearly raises serious ethics issues.

All of which brings us back to Barnes and his yet-to-be-specifically defined campaign-finance reform. In addition to lowering contribution limits, the governor says he wants to improve disclosure.

Now, campaign contributions are reported in such a haphazard and disorganized way as to discourage close inspection of the givers, the receivers and the dollars involved.

Why not require digital reporting of contributions that would be posted on the Internet as soon as they are received? Barnes says he believes that might be a good idea. Whether it could be enacted into law is another matter.

Still, it would give the electorate a better idea of who runs Georgia.

The governor's office has been forthcoming about the general sources, if not the individuals, of Barnes' financial support: trial lawyers, physicians, bankers, some developers, etc.

Yet, even Barnes caused eyebrows to arch with the recent revelation that since he took office he has raised nearly $1 million, much of it used to retire his personal campaign debt.

In his first week in office, Barnes issued an executive order prohibiting executive-office employees from accepting gifts from anyone doing business with the state. Presumably, that also includes any person regulated by the state.

Some of the governor's critics are asking: ``Is the governor violating his own order? How is a post-election contribution of money to pay off a personal bank loan different from any other gift presented to a state employee? And who are these after-the-fact contributors? Why won't the governor identify them now?''

These are valid questions. A careful reworking of the State Ethics Laws might help answer them.